Critical Question: Are There Rival Causes?

...when you have good reason to believe that the writer
or speaker is using evidence to support a claim about the cause
(to bring about, make happen, or affect) of something.

Clues:

X has the effect of ... X deters ...
X facilitates ... as a result of X ...
X leads to ... X increases he likelihood ...
X influences ... X determines ...
X is a factor in ... X contributes to ...
X is linked to ...

The Pervasiveness of Rival Causes

Lessons Learned
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

Detecting Rival Causes

Clues for Detecting Rival Causes
 "Can I think of any other way to interpret the
evidence?"
 "What else might have caused this act or these
findings?"
 "If I looked at this from another point of view, what might
I see as important causes?"
 "If this interpretation is incorrect, what other
interpretation might make sense?"

The Cause or A Cause

frequent error --

Multiple contributory causes occur more often than do single
causes in situations involving the characteristics or activities
of humans.

Rival Causes and Scientific Research

Researchers start with tentative beliefs -- hypotheses --
about causes of events. Once a hypothesis has been firmly
established by dependable research evidence, it changes from a
hypothesis to a law.

In the domain of complex human behavior --

When speakers or writers use findings from research to prove that
one event causes another:
1. Try to find out as much as you can about the research
procedures.
2. Determine rival causes.

The more plausible rival causes that can account for the findings,
the less faith we should have in the hypothesis favored by the
communicator.

A major goal of scientific research is to minimize the number of
plausible hypotheses. Scientists have come up with many techniques
for ruling out, or eliminating, plausible rival causes. Sometimes
these work; sometimes they don't (especially research studying
complex human behavior).

Rival Causes for Differences Between Groups

PROBLEM:

Ask, "Are there rival causes that might also explain the
differences in the groups?"

Is there any evidence that the explanation has been critically
examined?
Is it likely that the hypothesis may be biased by social,
political, or psychological forces?
What rival causes have not been considered? How credible is the
author's hypothesis relative to rival causes?
Is the hypothesis thorough in accounting for many puzzling aspects
of the events in questions?
How consistent is the hypothesis with all the available relevant
evidence?

Be wary of accepting the first interpretation of an event you
encounter.